<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (6) TMI 1087 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772974</link>
    <description>The SC/Tribunal addressed Central Excise duty recovery limitations. Held that extended limitation period cannot be invoked without specific grounds of suppression or fraud. Since the Department was aware of goods clearance through periodic returns and audit reports, the demand raised beyond two years was time-barred. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order and rejecting the Department&#039;s recovery claim based on statutory limitation principles.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Jun 2025 10:20:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=829563" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (6) TMI 1087 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772974</link>
      <description>The SC/Tribunal addressed Central Excise duty recovery limitations. Held that extended limitation period cannot be invoked without specific grounds of suppression or fraud. Since the Department was aware of goods clearance through periodic returns and audit reports, the demand raised beyond two years was time-barred. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order and rejecting the Department&#039;s recovery claim based on statutory limitation principles.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772974</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>